( 1 ) THE first appellant is the tenant and the second appellant is his younger brother. The respondent had filed an eviction petition on 6-10-1970 under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of:

(A) subletting or parting with possession by first appellant to second appellant [s. 14 (1) (b)];

(B) non-living by the tenant or any other member of his family in the premises let out [s. 14 (1) (d)];

(C) personal need [s. 14 (1) (e)] ; and

(D) the tenant having acquired other accommodation [s. 14 (1) (h)].

EVICTION having been ordered on the grounds enumerated under section 14 (1) (b), (d ). and (e) and an appeal against the same also having been dismissed this second appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) SINCE interference is possible under section 39 of the Act only if there is any substantial question of law arising in the appellant s favour the arguments proceeded only on the basis of the findings of the courts below. It may be sufficient, therefore, to notice the relevant findings of the Tribunal on only the questions argued in this appeal.

( 3 ) AFTER observing that the landlord had simply pleaded in para 18 (3) in the